SUBSCRIBE:

Share

(CCPJ/ISAI) - The following letter, co-sponsored by the CCPJ andISAI and signed by ten other freedom of expression groups,protests Internet censorship in many member nations of theAsia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). The letter will bepresented to leaders of APEC nations at the APEC leaders' summitin Vancouver, Canada on 24 and 25 November 1997, and will be sentto the APEC Secretariat in advance. Please circulate the actionto authorities and media in your country, particularly if yournation is a member of APEC.

We, the undersigned press freedom and freedom of expressionorganizations, are writing to express our deep concern aboutefforts of many member nations of the Asia-Pacific EconomicCooperation (APEC) to control the free flow of information andfree expression on the Internet in their respective countries. Adangerous precedent is set when a government censors the type ofcontent to be discussed in any medium, and withholding access toa medium on the basis of a government directive is a furtherthreat to freedom of expression.

Time and time again we have seen governments use the existence ofone restriction to justify the addition of further restrictions.To think that any government can issue one content directive,about pornography for example, and stop there is folly. It isbeyond the ability and the authority of any government to decidewhat the public should see, hear or say on an issue by issuebasis, and turning our backs as governments throughout APEC placerestrictions on the one truly free medium of free expression isunconscionable.

We wish to point to the following attempts, both past andpresent, made by some APEC members in this regard:

In China, all Internet users must register with police, whileall traffic on the Internet is routed throughgovernment-monitored gateways where authorities block access to anumber of sites on the Internet that they believe containsmaterial that runs contrary to its rigid culture, includingpolitically-sensitive sites and Western media publications;

In Indonesia, the Minister of Tourism, Posts andTelecommunications announced this year that the country wasplanning to control access to the Internet as it went ahead witha programme to build its infrastructure. The minister reportedlydeclared that "pornography [and] things that hamper or threatennational security" would be controlled, and that "the values ofthe nation would definitely have a bearing upon the applicationof the Internet;"

In Malaysia, the Acceptable Use Policy at Jaring, the mainMalaysian Internet line, states that "members shall not use theJaring network for any activities not allowed under any Law ofMalaysia." Also, in response to Malaysian students abroad whocriticized Malaysia on-line, the government considered variousways to curb such dissent, with the education minister proposingto cut scholarships of offending students;

In Japan, while there do not exist laws regulating what userscan say and do on the Internet, a non-profit organization calledthe Electronic Network Consortium, which includes many computercompanies, recently drew up guidelines that address in generalterms the issue of "inappropriate" material on the Internet. Theguidelines fall under the heading of, among others, "rules andmanners for those who utilize PC (personal computer)communications services;"

In Australia, the government is attempting to implement a codeof conduct for Internet service providers (ISPs) for on-linecontent regulation. The move was part of a government plan todevelop a "national framework that protects Australian citizens,particularly children, from offensive or illegal materialonline." The government decided "that as a general rule materialthat is considered illegal offline should be considered illegalonline;"

In Singapore, the government in 1996 instituted resolutions thatprovided for the regulation of the whole Internet industry as abroadcast medium. The island state's broadcasting authority hasbroad powers to control and license all ISPs and users, and toensure that they abide by the authority's strict guidelinesregarding "objectionable" content, ranging from pornography to"areas which may undermine public morals, political stability orreligious harmony;"

In the United States of America, the government introduced theCommunications Decency Act (CDA) - later struck down by U.S.courts - which would have criminalized "indecent" speech on theInternet. Following the CDA's failure, the government held asummit meeting this year to encourage Internet users to self-ratetheir speech and to urge industry leaders to develop and deploythe tools for blocking "inappropriate" speech;

In the Philippines, in 1996, at the request of the Department ofJustice, the National Telecommunications Commission of theDepartment of Transportation and Communications sent a memo toall service providers asking for their comments and suggestionson the matter of barring or blocking pornographic materials onthe Internet;

In Thailand, the state-run National Electronics and ComputerTechnology Centre (Nectec) in 1996 called upon local ISPs topolice their own sites for pornography. Internet subscribers andoperators were also required to complete an agreement saying theywould not show anything considered indecent and that if theybroke that obligation their licences would be revoked.

In view of these measures, we would like to respectfully remindthe member nations of APEC that Article 19 of the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights states that: "Everyone has the rightto freedom of opinion and expression: this right includes freedomto hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive andimpart information and ideas through any media and regardless offrontiers." Consequently, citizens of every member nation shouldbe able to access and use the Internet freely and without anyform of harassment by authorities.

In addition, we would like to remind member nations thatcontent-based restrictions on on-line communication also violatesuch internationally guaranteed rights of free expression.Moreover, we believe that the most effective means of respondingto offensive content is to counter it with more content.Censoring offensive material, through the blocking of sites orother means, will not remove it from the Internet; rather, theease of circulating information on the Internet will simply causethe material to be duplicated elsewhere on other sites.

We would also like to point out that any attempt to regulate theInternet is ultimately unworkable. For example, to enforce a codeof conduct on service providers could result in the arbitrarycensorship of material on-line and lead to a chill on on-linespeech. In addition, to regulate the Internet as if it were abroadcast medium betrays a clear misunderstanding of its uniquestructure; it is a borderless, interactive and decentralized massmedium where information can originate from and be sent to almostanywhere on the planet.

As well, while we recognize the importance of giving due regardto the representation of all cultures on the Internet, we arefirmly opposed to censorship as a means of ensuring respect forcultural norms or values.

We would add in closing that any attempt to restrict Internetcommunication will reduce the many cultural, educational andeconomic benefits that the new communications technology bringsto the member nations of APEC. It is our sincere hope that theAPEC nations will reexamine their efforts to restrict theunhindered and universal access to the Internet and insteadrespect the fundamental right of freedom of expression and allthe benefits and opportunities for your citizens that can accruefrom that stance.

IFEX publishes original and member-produced free expression news and reports. Some member content has been edited by IFEX. We invite you to contact [email protected] to request permission to reproduce or republish in whole or in part content from this site.